In 1984, while doing my dissertation research in toxicology, I received a complimentary copy of the first edition of Edith Efron’s impressive tome, The Apocalyptics. Since then, it has become quite worn and “supplemented” with so much highlighting, underlining, and notes in the margins of almost every page, that I recently ordered a copy of the most recent edition for my office, to have it on hand against the unlikely event that a co-worker ever shows an interest.

Edith Efron was a journalist, not a scientist. In what she described as “an intellectual detective story”, she compiled a mountain of historical facts that told the seldom acknowledged story of how “apocalyptic” environmentalism evolved from the scientifically bankrupt assumptions of a few ambitious doomsayers to become the governmental behemoth that, for good and ill, still shapes society, today.

Even though politics has always played a much more important role than science ever did in the development of environmental policy, Efron displayed an understanding of the relevant science which impressed many luminaries in the scientific community, at the time, ranging from Frederick Oehme, then President of the Society of Toxicology, to the world-renowned Bruce Ames, professor at UC Berkeley and member of the National Academy of Sciences. Director A.M. Weinburg of Oak Ridge, who had coined the term “trans-science” 12 years earlier, described Efron’s book as “a profoundly important challenge to the environmental movement”, noting that “If Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ is the ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ of environmental cancer, then Edith Efron’s ‘The Apocalyptics’ is its ‘J’Accuse'”.

(The Apocalyptics lacks the sentimental charm and poetic alarm of ‘Silent Spring’, but it has the advantage of being far more accurate, both scientifically and historically.)

Professor Shimkin of the University of California at San Diego called The Apocalyptics “a monumental investigation”, adding what turned out to be the overly optimistic hope that “responsible toxicologists, cancer specialists and regulators will derive the lessons to be learned from Efron’s inquiry.” After working in this field for some 25 years, now, I understand why Dr. Shimkin’s hope was unrealistic, but I am still deeply disappointed that his hope remains, for the most part, unrealized.

If, regardless of what the ideologues of your chosen political party would have you believe, you are among that small minority of people who actually want to understand both the difference between science fiction and science fact in environmentalism, and the process by which the former came to masquerade as the latter in public policy, then this book is for you.

(Incidentally, for those who mistakenly think it should matter, I am a lifelong democrat. However, I am a scientist first, and always will be.)

Finally, don’t be put off by the age of the first edition. As a veteran government toxicologist, I can assure you that nothing in this book is “dated.” Today, the forces of error that were exposed in Efron’s original masterpiece have only become more powerful. And, the general public has been effectively trained to dismiss out of hand any “politically incorrect” science as nothing more than industry propaganda. The first time I read this book, the irony of its Orwellian publication date (1984) didn’t dawn on me. Now, almost 27 years later, that irony is painfully obvious.

One Response to Doug: Remarkable Women

Doug,
Hopefully the presentation above made it clear that the above piece on Edith Efron’s book was from your friend, but whenever possible if you could include the name of the person writing the material I do like to attribute whenever I post anything.
John

Meta

Climate Fraud

Breitbart Websites

Gab.ai The Free Speech alternative to Twitter.

Heinlein

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.

Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Top Posts & Pages

Quote from the Czech Republic……….

I found this quote on a British Web page, from a Czech blog, I was so struck by its truth I decided to put it on the sidebar of my blog. Obama is a little man, nothing much by himself. But that is what makes him scary, we did this, we the people. Maybe we would have correctly identified a American Hitler or Stalin and rejected them, but this non-entity, this enigma could well end up doing much more damage in the end.
_________________________

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the Prince of the Fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President." TWICE!!!